"No Pain No Gain": Presenteeism Evaluation Through Calling with Job Crafting as a Sensemaking Strategy.

Purpose: Researchers have a wide-ranging consensus on the negative side of presenteeism that leads to productivity loss; however, little is known about its flipside that has undertaken motivational factors as potential antecedents. This implicit gap is addressed by exploring a new perspective of presenteeism and proposing employees' calling as its precursor with the help of self-determination theory (SDT). The mediating mechanism is explicated with job crafting by considering it a sensemaking strategy that offers a plausible explanation of the positive association between an employee's calling and presenteeism. This research is an attempt to explore the positive side of presenteeism and generalize the presenteeism findings in another sector apart from the medical field, as this phenomenon is gaining widespread acceptance in HR literature.
Methods: The data were collected from 274 employees from the textile sector, and the hypotheses were tested using SmartPLS software. We collected time-lagged data from the textile sector employees of Pakistan. The individual-level data have been collected to test the relationship between calling, job crafting, and presenteeism.
Results: The results indicate the positive association between calling and presenteeism through direct and indirect paths. However, the mediating mechanism through two dimensions of job crafting, crafting challenging job demands and crafting social job resources, was not supported.
Conclusion: Drawing on SDT, we contribute to the literature by identifying calling as an antecedent of presenteeism. We propose and test the direct and indirect relationships between calling, job crafting, and presenteeism. Future researchers might attempt to test this model in different sectors like multinational companies, educational institutions, healthcare, retail, etc. The proposed relationships also lend themselves to be explicated with other mediators.

Introduction

Contemporary organizations focus on seeking a workforce comprised workers who are active job designers and unveil startling problem-solving skills.1 Employees’ proactive behavior is an essential source to identify them in the organization. Their initiative-taking behavior gives them a competitive advantage to stay in the organization even in perilous conditions.2 The uncertainty-loaded and complex business environment demands extreme behavioral manifestations and survival initiatives from the workforce. This ongoing competition induces crafting skills in personnel to balance their demands and resources at the workplace.3 Considering the above facts, the top-down job redesign approach is not most useful in ever-intensifying uncertain situations where the intention is to get more output with less input. To encounter job expectations, employees need to be more committed and loyal to their work even while suffering from health issues. Individuals are motivated to handle their challenging tasks and accustomed to going ahead to perform well. Ma et al4 theorized the concept of presenteeism characterized by the underlying motivation of employees which opened a new stream of thoughts for researchers. Aronsson et al5 proposed the most commonly used definition of sickness presenteeism as “the phenomenon of people, despite complaints and ill health that should prompt rest and absence from work, still turning up at their jobs” (P. 503).

Paradoxically, the positive aspect of presenteeism has been ignored in literature to some extent; however, financial loss and decline in productivity due to presenteeism are soundly evidenced.6,7 In the present study, we underpin the notion of presenteeism with intrinsically motivated workforce irrespective of organizational factors which regulate individuals’ presenteeism. Involuntary presenteeism leads to bad health and productivity loss which amounts to billions of dollars. The exhibition of presenteeism as a choice might be promising for the momentous performance of individuals. The controversy in literature concerning either presenteeism is a positive or negative phenomenon draws scholarly attention to explain this puzzle.

With the demanding nature of employee presence, absenteeism becomes intolerable, and emphasis has shifted to finding strategies to make presenteeism worth practicable.8 The proactive approach of the employees to reform and modify the job tasks is known as job crafting. Job crafting is defined as the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the tasks or relational boundaries. Job crafter has a set of competencies comprising knowledge, skills, and abilities to accomplish personal goals through problem-solving job crafting.1 Bottom-up reforming of job, “job crafting” seems to be a sensemaking tool that increases the decisive power of individuals, dragging them to be at the workplace even when not feeling well to perform the required tasks,9 thus showing the presenteeism.

The scholarly attention has been shifted to finding out the antecedents and contextual factors which govern the concept of presenteeism.10 In literature, presenteeism is conceptualized in terms of the motivational attributes and dispositional traits11 which encourage a person to stay present at work. This stream of literature is still in its infancy and requires more investigation. We draw on the overarching theoretical framework of self-determination theory (SDT) proposed by Ryan and Deci12 to explicate the proposed links. Workplace calling, in its origin, is being beckoned by God or for the well-being of society.13 Living a calling is characterized by the dynamism that fuels the individuals’ perception that their work is more important than their health.

“Working while being impaired due to physical or psychological illness”,4 instead of “attending work while ill”,14 is the debate underpinning this study. The concept of presenteeism is widely studied in literature due to its far-reaching workplace outcomes.15 Presenteeism has been discussed as a positive as well as a negative phenomenon in literature. Initial literature on presenteeism is rich in depicting its negative consequences comprised organizational pressures, which are associated with considerable cost,6,16 and long-lasting health issues.17,18

The main objective of our study is to explain the ostensible etiology of presenteeism and contribute to existing literature that sketches modern avenues for practice in organizations. The basic theme and contributions of our study are to answer the “why & how” of presenteeism. To simplify the “why”, we contribute to the existing paradigm by identifying an antecedent as a motivational cause of presenteeism termed as calling. “How” is explained by the intervening mechanisms which lead to presenteeism. In our study mediating variable is job crafting, comprising four constituents, namely crafting structural job resources, crafting social job resources, crafting challenging job demands, and crafting hindering job demands between calling and presenteeism. The present study is a step towards closing the theoretical gap by explicating this phenomenon with the help of SDT. Currently, calling is mainly studied through career construction theory,19 calling theory of career success,20 work calling theory,21 etc. which set a line of thoughts towards employability resulting in job success and intention to stay. The concept of presenteeism in terms of the motivational path has already been discussed in the context of the conservation of resources theory22 which interprets presenteeism as a phenomenon to elude additional energy loss due to expected increase in work demands if one remains absent from work.23 However, in our study, we rely on SDT, a motivation theory, to visualize how presenteeism turns out to be productive through calling and job crafting.

Moreover, culturally Pakistan is different from Western societies. Pakistan is a collectivist country, where people believe in collective goals and objectives instead of individual gains.24 Furthermore, Pakistan scores high on power distance, which reflects in the Pakistani textile industry due to its autocratic management style. According to the Hofstede-insights report,24 Pakistan sores 55 on power distance that depicts its preference for inequality of power. Managers have the authority to make decisions and subordinates are bound to obey them.

Theoretical Foundation

SDT has its roots in multiple motivation theories. SDT comprises six mini-theories: cognitive evaluation theory, organismic integration theory, causality orientations theory, basic psychological needs theory, goal contents theory and relationships motivation theory that narrate the level of motivation and approach of execution.25 According to organismic integration theory, commands and instructions of supervisors are internalized over time. Similarly, employee calling is internalized over time, and it becomes routine to handle challenging tasks and stay present at the workplace even with health issues. Thus, a plausible explanation of presenteeism is employees’ calling at work.

Drawing on the SDT, we argue that an individual’s behavior is grounded in two types of motivation: controlled motivation and autonomous motivation.12 Autonomous motivation ensures empowerment by choice and selection; however, controlled motivation demands unquestionable obedience to following structured rules and regulations, leading to employee performance. Presenteeism emerging as a result of the latter results in employees’ health issues and productivity loss as it is driven by supervisor pressure, job insecurity, and in congruence with the organizational culture. Unsurprisingly, presenteeism in autonomous motivation reveals fascinating findings. Intrinsic motivation triggers individuals to work for the benefit of society, and it gives them a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction. They consider work as distinctively challenging and meaningful. This autonomous motivation gives rise to vitality and persistence and helps them restructure their jobs. A person’s calling helps in building personal resources and in evaluating a particular situation from different angles that enhance interest in the assigned task and ensures functional presenteeism. A person living in calling is engrossed in the work which leads to presenteeism. They set goals and deadlines to elude workload. Putting off work dissipates through a stringent roadmap, which keeps the individuals calling, directs their behavior, and increases their decisive power to be present. Motivation is defined as an internal drive that elicits desired behavior through direction, persistence, and intensity to perform in the workplace.26 In our study, we defined direction as the choice of desired behavior which is presenteeism. Calling is investigated as intensity; it is internal drive and energy that facilitates task completion. Persistence is the gradual adaptability to the circumstances through sensemaking that increases over time and gives rise to the commitment of the same behavior even in bad shape of health.

Literature Review and Development of Hypotheses

Calling and Presenteeism

Ages back, the concept of calling was derived from theology that elucidates the sentiment of people when God is calling.27 The classical approach considered calling as summons from God; the modern concept, on the other hand, is based on the fact that the summons are from internal beliefs. Living a calling is still a source of remarkable challenge for HR scholars due to its diverse conceptualization and its bewildering challenges in finding meaning and purpose in the workplace.

A couple of decades back, the concept of calling in organizational behavior was introduced along with job and career by Wrzesniewski et al,28 who defined calling as “the fulfillment that doing the work brings to the individual.” Individuals with high calling orientations are morally bound to work and find it as meaningful as the primary purpose of their life. They are intrinsically motivated and self-determined individuals and show positive work behavior.29

The construct of calling has different insights in literature, like perceiving a calling, living out a calling, and searching for a calling. Searching for a calling is individuals’ struggle to fit with the job and their search to match the work with their values. Perceiving a calling is an expression whereby a person demonstrates his/her approach to work. Living out a calling is a degree to which felt calling is endorsed in a particular job. Perceiving a calling is considerably distinct from living out a calling, and is not to be studied as the same construct. Our study discussed individual calling that has revealed a considerable impact on employee coping strategies and positive work outcomes. Perceiving a calling alone is not the source of happiness and satisfaction in life as many people have perceived a calling but they do not get the opportunities to enact their felt calling into work. So perceiving coupled with searching for calling is the ultimate reason for satisfaction in a career path as employees display their perceived calling in work that gives a sense of accomplishment and fulfills the purpose of their life.

According to SDT, this sense of achievement is at its peak when one feels fulfilled by needs related to autonomy, relatedness and competence. Autonomy refers to the extent to which one can make decisions and has control over activities, competence refers to the skills and abilities which enhance one’s self-efficacy, and relatedness is one’s association and networking with other human beings. An individual who has work calling tries to achieve a specific goal to attain well-being12 by deriving meaning from work. This research focuses on the motivational aspect, which helps individuals sustain their resources to survive in adverse circumstances.

According to Aronsson and Gustafsson,30 “individual boundlessness” introduced the culture of “no off or always on job” corresponding to infinite work demands which increases the possibility of presenteeism. The empirical findings of Johns14 depict the phenomenon of presenteeism as “connotes perseverance in the face of adversity” and show the persistence of behavior even in bad health. Presenteeism is the suggested approach to recovering from bad health31 as a friendly work environment engrosses energies to perform activities and heal the impact of illness. Empirical studies propose that career calling relates to the well-being, commitment and job engagement of the employees.32 Due to their calling territory, they are more satisfied and happier with their jobs and life.33 According to Dobrow,34 nurturing and continuous upgrading of meaningful work is not an easy task. Calling is a cyclic procedure and we continue debates based on our conjecture that presenteeism is the outcome of calling which confirms trajectories for continuous tilling and sustaining of calling. Thus, we proposed our first hypothesis:

H1: Individual calling relates positively to presenteeism.

Calling and Job Crafting

The proactive approach of employees to reshape and mold their jobs according to the situation is known as job crafting. Wrzesniewski and Dutton35 first proposed it to demonstrate the self-initiated, proactive behavior in employees. The first aspect of job crafting is defined as the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries in their work. This can take three ways: task crafting, relational crafting, and cognitive crafting. The work design theory is the primary source to derive the second prominent aspect of job crafting through job demands and job resources. Tims and Bakker36 studied job crafting in relation to the job demands-resources model and defined as “the changes that employees may make to balance their job demands and job resources with their personal abilities and needs.” Job resources propose the job in terms of motivation to achieve work goals.37 However, job demands require physical and emotional strength to remove the barriers which cause hindrance in job requirements. Tims et al38 acknowledged four dimensions of job crafting: increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources, increasing challenging job demands, and decreasing hindering job demands. These two distinct ideologies have brought many challenges to literature. The approach of Wrzesniewski and Dutton35 emphasized improving the quality and meaning of employee identity, while Tims et al38 defined job crafting as a tool to balance job demands and recourses for job-fit. In our study, we incorporate Tims et al38 stream of thoughts to understand its mediating mechanism.

A recent study by Li2 explored the mediating effect of job crafting for the relationship between proactive personality and creative performance. Li and Yang39 demonstrated the noteworthy relationship between calling and job crafting. Calling is innately related to meaningfulness, purpose, and interaction with challenging tasks.40 Despite extrinsic monetary rewards, personal values and satisfaction are the main driving factors which retain the person in the current job and lower the turnover;21 as, in reality, they are responding to their calling. We propose our next hypothesis as follows:

H2: Calling relates positively to (a) crafting structural job resources, (b) crafting challenging job demands, (c) crafting social job resources, and (d) crafting hindering job demands.

Job Crafting and Presenteeism

Job redesign empowers the employees to perform innovative tasks and make beneficial social interactions. Job crafting revealed several positive outcomes comprising work engagement,41 job satisfaction,42 job performance,38 and many other psychological outcomes.

The study by Zhang and Parker42 discussed job crafting and highlighted the ambiguous issue of cognitive crafting, and explained in what way decreasing hindering job demands is proactive behavior. According to Kira et al,43 job crafting stimulates the sustainable work behavior of employees, which is the ultimate objective of work design,43 and supports the concept of presenteeism.

Employees’ heartfelt desire for identification encourages them to reshape the job according to demands.39 Giæver and Løvseth9 studied the physicians and confirmed that they used job crafting as a strategy to craft their tasks and set boundaries, eg, letting down stress-related tasks (hindering job demand) and eliciting the support of peers (crafting social job resources) which helped them to perform well in case of illness, which supports our argument that job crafting increases the probability of presenteeism. Physicians live in their calling due to the social nature of their work.44

The concept of presenteeism was first introduced by Cooper45 as

Being at work when you should be at home either because you are ill or because you are working such long hours that you are no longer effective. [p.15]

The general approach of presenteeism as a negative phenomenon is not acceptable in current situations as work is essential for an individual’s well-being and health.46 Work is an important domain, and it contributes in meaningful ways by fulfilling individual psychological needs.47 The role of flexible work settings enhances the chances of presenteeism. Penetrating misconceptions about presenteeism is merely due to negative attitudes and mismanagement of employees at work. However, presenteeism is idiosyncratic and context-bound in nature which requires ongoing strategies and tools to be handled. So, we propose our next hypothesis as follows:

H3: (a) Crafting structural job resources, (b) Crafting challenging job demands, (c) Crafting social job resources, and (d) Crafting hindering job demands relate positively to presenteeism.

Job Crafting as a Mediator

Employee adjustment between demands of work and available resources is mainly subject to increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources (resource building), increasing challenging job demands, and decreasing hindering job demands (job customization).48 In this study, we provide greater insight into how these dimensions of job crafting trigger the relationship between calling and presenteeism.

Increasing social job resources is the process of resource building by getting help and feedback from peers and supervisors; however, employees must emphasize learning new skills when they believe in increasing structural job resources. On the other hand, when we talk about decreasing hindering job demands, the employees try to avoid emotionally intense tasks by intelligently playing the situation. Intentionally taking a risk and proactively performing challenging jobs refers to increasing challenging job demands. Empirical studies show the negative relation between challenging job demands and sense of calling,34 and similar negative correlations have been found between challenging job demands and employee health49 which is the most considered factor concerning presenteeism. Individual attributes are an important aspect contributing to structural resources. Risk-taker and challenge-lover individuals are primarily involved in job crafting behavior. Individuals who have a high sense of calling are more likely to engage themselves in job crafting skills. Esteves and Lopes50 demonstrated the positive relationship of increasing challenging job demands with sense of calling, as calling mediated the negative effect of increasing challenging job demands on turnover intention. However, they found no significant association between the increase in structural job resources and calling. It means if jobs offer challenging tasks, then employees are more likely to stay with the organization to accomplish challenging goals.51 So, we can propose that during presenteeism, the probability of facing diverse and challenging situations is high which can be handled through crafting.

Power distance orientation has a significant correlation with social relations at work. It means if employees have strong respect and affiliation with their supervisor, then they are more likely to accept the rules and regulations of the organization. They are more comfortable with disciplined and formal organizational setup over informal structure and are not willing to change the structure of their job.19 According to Karanika-Murray and Biron,52 the only way to engage in presenteeism is the adaptive skills to keep the balance between poor health and work demands. Cognitive crafting is a set of personal-level efforts without obtaining the consent of higher management.53 It facilitates individuals to have a desirable behavior in the workplace, and creates and maintains an image that portrays them as committed and responsible persons for sustainable employment. It gives a sense of purpose and invokes identification if managed well. So we propose our next hypothesis as follows:

H4: (a) Crafting structural job resources, (b) Crafting challenging job demands, (c) Crafting social job resources and (d) Crafting hindering job demands mediate the relation between calling and presenteeism.

The conceptual framework is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Conceptual framework.

Methods

Sample and Procedure

The purposive sampling technique was adapted to ensure that the data are collected from appropriate respondents according to the objectives of the study. The target population was employees from the textile sector of Pakistan. Pakistani textile sector is contributing widely to the economy of the country. Practically 40% of the total labor force,54 trained and untrained, is engaged in the textile industry. The rationale behind studying the textile sector of Pakistan is that it is the spine of the Pakistan industry. According to the Pakistan Bureau of statistics, it makes up 9.5% of GDP and 57% of exports. Studying the textile industry of a country like Pakistan, which is the 8th leading exporter of textile products in Asia contributes towards exciting results. A pilot study was performed at Faisalabad, Punjab which is believed to be the hub of the textile industry in Pakistan. For the pilot study, we approached volunteer non-managerial employees who were passionate and regular at their jobs.

We collected data through the survey method by administering questionnaires. The survey protocol was approved by the ethics committee of Government College University Faisalabad, Pakistan. The lead authors approached the employees after taking permission from the HR department of the concerned textile companies. Two lead authors physically met the employees to explain the nature of the variables to be studied, and onsite questionnaires got filled. Written informed consent was obtained from the participants. The volunteering employees were randomly selected from the apparel and production departments having non-managerial positions. As the data were collected in two time-lags, that is why it was important to know the willingness of employees to ensure their availability in the second lag. We adopted a time-lag research design to reduce the occurrence of common method bias (CMB) and approached the respondents in two different periods one month apart. At T1, we distributed 350 questionnaires to collect data for our independent variable and mediators which are calling and job crafting. We received back 310 questionnaires from the respondents. After one month, at T2, we again contacted the same respondents who responded at T1 to collect the responses against our dependent variable which is presenteeism. To ensure confidentiality, we asked the respondents to use the last four digits of their mobile phone number instead of their name or another identity. At the end of the data collection process, we received 274 (78% response rate) properly filled useable questionnaires for our study. The final sample included 243 males and 31 females. The majority of the respondents were between 30 and 40 years of age (52.6%).

As the textile industry in Pakistan is male-dominant,55 and the current study does not invoke a gender-sensitive research question, that is why a predominantly male sample was not believed to pose any threat to the generalizability of the results. Secondly, previous research studies relying on male-dominant samples conducted in collectivistic and individualistic cultures have also discussed their results in the respective cultures without compromising the generalizability owing to male-oriented samples.56–58

CMB was further reduced by ensuring the anonymity of the respondents, inserting the reverse-coded items, and positioning the dependent and independent variables at separate places within the questionnaire.59 Additionally, as per Harman’s single-factor test, the single factor explained only 22.16% of the total variance, which is within the acceptable range.59

Measures

All the items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.” Calling was measured by the multidimensional calling measure (MCM) developed by Hagmaier and Abele,60 having 9 items. A sample item includes “I am passionate about doing my job.” A well-known job crafting scale composed of four dimensions developed by Tims et al38 was used to measure job crafting. It consists of 21 items. Increasing structural job resources consists of five items; a sample item is “I decide on my own how I do things.” Increasing social job resources includes five items; a sample item is “I ask colleagues for advice.” Increasing challenging job demands also has five items including the sample item “I regularly take on extra tasks even though I do not receive extra salary for them.” Decreasing hindering job demands is measured through six items, out of which a sample item is “I manage my work so that I try to minimize contact with people whose problems affect me emotionally.” The Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS)61 consisting of 6 items was used to measure presenteeism. A sample item is “Despite having my (health problem), I felt energetic enough to complete all my work.”

Analysis and Results

The analyses were conducted by employing partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS 3. First, the reliability and validity of the study constructs were established using the measurement model. Then, the structural model was assessed.

The PLS-SEM approach offers certain advantages over its counterpart covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM). First, it is instrumental in cases where a theory is underdeveloped and the principal purpose of the researcher is to explain the variance in the outcome variable(s).62 Second, it puts few distributional assumptions as it follows a non-parametric approach to data analysis.62 Lastly, PLS-SEM allows handling both reflective as well as formative constructs as compared to CB-SEM, and it can handle complex models relatively well.62,63

Assessment of the Measurement Model

The reliability of the constructs was established using Cronbach’s Alpha and composite reliability (CR). Alpha and CR values for most of the study constructs were greater than the threshold of 0.70,62,64 except for crafting challenging job demands and crafting social job resources for which the Alpha values were 0.512 and 0.458, respectively. These low Alpha values, however, could be attributed to the small number of items for both of these variables, which were further receded by the deletion of a couple of items from each of these constructs owing to low factor loadings. Moreover, the CR was well within the acceptable range; therefore, low Alpha did not deem problematic.

To establish the convergent validity, factor loadings, CR, and average variance extracted (AVE) values were examined. Apart from a few exceptions, factor loadings were greater than the threshold of 0.70. These factor loadings were significant and retained for model testing.62 We removed some items from job crafting scale with factor loadings lower than 0.40. The removal of a few items is justified as the original job crafting scale was developed in a much different context and culture. The job crafting scale was originally developed in the Netherlands mainly for the service sector which has a different culture than Pakistan. The original scale of job crafting developed by Tims et al38 was validated by conducting three series of studies by collecting data from different sectors other than the manufacturing sector. The context of Tims et al’s38 study was different from the context of this research in two significant aspects. Firstly, in the original study,38 most respondents were from the services sector and included only 7.6% of respondents from sectors other than the service industry. Secondly, in the original study most of the respondents were female; as the general behavior of males is different from that of females, so in the male-dominant sector (textile sector) we might encounter different results. It is not uncommon for researchers to encounter low factor loadings for well-established scales that have been developed and validated in a different context than the context in which they are currently being used.65 Moreover, the common rule of thumb about factor loading of 0.7 is generally not applied when scales are adapted from previous literature.66,67 Lastly, it is not uncommon to delete items as in previous research regarding job crafting, authors have deleted the items and adapted the questionnaire according to the context of the study to get the precise results.50,58,68,69

AVE values for a few constructs were below the cutoff value of 0.50. However, the AVE values between 0.40 and 0.50 could be considered, as Malhotra et al70 note that AVE is a more conservative measure of convergent validity which could be established following the CR value alone. These results are reported in Table 1.

Table 1

Indicator Reliability, VIF, Composite Reliability, Cronbach’s Alpha, Average Variance Extracted

Construct	Item	Loading	Alpha	rho-A	CR	AVE
Living a calling	C1	0.446	0.832	0.846	0.870	0.430
	C2	0.685
	C3	0.731
	C4	0.684
	C5	0.618
	C6	0.700
	C7	0.651
	C8	0.734
	C9	0.604
Crafting structural job resources	JC1	0.765	0.804	0.813	0.864	0.562
	JC2	0.780
	JC3	0.797
	JC4	0.762
	JC5	0.632
Crafting challenge job demands	JC11	0.901	0.512	0.698	0.703	0.461
	JC13	0.455
	JC15	0.603
Crafting social job resources	JC6	0.792	0.458	0.472	0.736	0.486
	JC7	0.712
	JC8	0.570
Crafting hindering job demands	JC16	0.715	0.800	0.806	0.857	0.500
	JC17	0.756
	JC18	0.626
	JC19	0.720
	JC20	0.714
	JC21	0.706
Presenteeism	P1	0.701	0.735	0.745	0.819	0.433
	P2	0.514
	P3	0.716
	P4	0.707
	P5	0.653
	P6	0.632

Note: All factor loadings were significant at p < 0.01.

Abbreviations: CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.

Fornell and Larcker71 criterion and Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) criterion62 were used to establish the discriminant validity (see Table 2). In line with the Fornell-Larcker criterion, the results showed that the square root of each construct’s AVE was higher than its respective correlations. An HTMT value approaching 1 is indicative of the lack of discriminant validity. The HTMT values were well below the threshold of 0.85, thus indicating good discriminant validity.72

Table 2

Discriminant Validity - Fornell–Larcker Criterion and HTMT

	Construct	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	Living a calling	3.651	0.714	(0.656)	0.391	0.211	0.443	0.403	0.502
2	Crafting structural job resources	3.321	0.873	0.334	(0.749)	0.477	0.781	0.740	0.578
3	Crafting challenge job demands	2.845	0.595	0.163	0.328	(0.679)	0.430	0.363	0.248
4	Crafting social job resources	3.388	0.653	0.283	0.472	0.195	(0.697)	0.754	0.605
5	Crafting hindering job demands	3.382	0.831	0.340	0.596	0.221	0.462	(0.707)	0.638
6	Presenteeism	3.403	0.675	0.404	0.443	0.145	0.354	0.496	(0.658)

Notes: N = 274. Diagonals in parenthesis under Fornell-Larcker Criterion represent the square root of average variance extracted (AVE); while below the diagonal the estimated correlations are represented. Above the diagonals are the HTMT values. All correlations are significant at 0.01 level. Bold values represent the square root of average variance extracted (AVE).

Assessment of the Structural Model

The structural model was assessed by the significance of the path values, predictive accuracy measured through R2, and predictive relevance assessed through Q2.

Hypotheses Testing

The preliminary support for our hypotheses was fetched from the correlation analysis. Correlations are reported in Table 2. A positive correlation existed between calling and presenteeism (r = 0.404, p < 0.01); thus, H1 was preliminarily supported. Calling was positively correlated with all four dimensions of job crafting, thus extending preliminary support to H2a – H2d. Similarly, H3a – H3d were also preliminarily supported as the four dimensions of job crafting had positive correlations with presenteeism. These results provided initial support to our hypotheses.

Results of the structural model showed that calling had a significant positive effect on presenteeism (β = 0.233, p < 0.05). Thus, H1 was supported. Calling significantly and positively influenced all four dimensions of job crafting namely crafting structural job resources, crafting challenge job demands, crafting social job resources, and crafting hindering job demands (β = 0.334, β = 0.163, β = 0.283, and β = 0.340, p < 0.05, respectively). Therefore, hypotheses H2a – H2d were supported. H3a and H3d were supported as crafting structural job resources and crafting hindering job demands exhibited a significant effect on presenteeism (β = 0.164 and β = 0.286, p < 0.01, respectively). H3b and H3c, however, could not be accepted because crafting challenging job demands and crafting social job resources did not have significant impact on presenteeism (β = −0.026 and β = 0.084, p > 0.05, respectively). These results are reported in Table 3 and Figure 2.

Table 3

Structural Model – Hypotheses Test Results

	Path	Path Coefficient	Bootstrap SE	t-value	P-value	95% CI		Result
						Lower	Upper
H1	Living a calling –> Presenteeism	0.233**	0.058	3.983	0.00	0.128	0.348	Supported
H2a	Living a calling –> Crafting structural job resources	0.334**	0.062	5.420	0.00	0.223	0.465	Supported
H2b	Living a calling –> Crafting challenging job demands	0.163*	0.084	1.951	0.05	−0.027	0.304	Supported
H2c	Living a calling –> Crafting social job resources	0.283**	0.062	4.587	0.00	0.177	0.421	Supported
H2d	Living a calling –> Crafting hindering job demands	0.340**	0.066	5.126	0.00	0.207	0.477	Supported
H3a	Crafting structural job resources –> Presenteeism	0.164**	0.055	2.995	0.00	0.050	0.264	Supported
H3b	Crafting challenging job demands –> Presenteeism	−0.026	0.058	0.447	0.66	−0.123	0.090	Not Supported
H3c	Crafting social job resources –> Presenteeism	0.084	0.067	1.258	0.21	−0.038	0.213	Not Supported
H3d	Crafting hindering job demands –> Presenteeism	0.286**	0.070	4.081	0.00	0.146	0.416	Supported
	Predictive Accuracy (R2)	R2 (Presenteeism)			0.335
		R2 (Crafting structural job resources)			0.112
		R2 (Crafting challenging job demands)			0.027
		R2 (Crafting social job resources)			0.080
		R2 (Crafting hindering job demands)			0.115
	Predictive Relevance (Q2)	Q2 (Presenteeism)			0.134
		Q2 (Crafting structural job resources)			0.059
		Q2 (Crafting challenging job demands)			0.010
		Q2 (Crafting social job resources)			0.032
		Q2 (Crafting hindering job demands)			0.055

Note: N = 274. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.

Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.

Figure 2

Path-analytic model of the parallel mediating effects.

The R2 values reported in Table 3 show the amount of variance explained in the endogenous variables by the effect of respective exogenous variables.72,73 Predictive relevance is also established as Q2 values reported in Table 3 are all greater than zero.

Mediation Analysis

Hypothesis 4a – 4d hypothesized the mediating effect of four dimensions of job crafting for the relationship of calling with presenteeism. Employing bootstrapping procedure supplied in SmartPLS 3, the results reported in Table 4 reveals that crafting structural job resources and crafting hindering job demands significantly mediated the above-mentioned relationship (indirect effect = 0.055 and 0.097, p < 0.05, respectively). Crafting challenging job demands and crafting social job resources, however, did not significantly mediate the IV-DV relationship. These findings lent support to H4a and H4d, while H4b and H4c were not supported. These results indicated a partial mediation as the direct effect was still significant (β = 0.233, p < 0.01) after controlling for the mediators.62

Table 4

Bootstrap Estimates of the Mediation Effect of Job Crafting for the Relationship Between Calling a Living and Presenteeism

	Path: IV –> MV –> DV	Product of Coefficients	Bootstrap SE	t-value	BC 95% CI		Results
		ab			Lower	Upper
H4a	Calling –> Crafting structural job resources –> Presenteeism	0.334*0.164 = 0.055*	0.022	2.458	0.018	0.102	Supported
H4b	Calling –> Crafting challenging job demands –> Presenteeism	0.163*-0.026 = −0.004	0.011	0.381	−0.028	0.016	Not Supported
H4c	Calling –> Crafting social job resources –> Presenteeism	0.283*0.084 = 0.024	0.021	1.123	−0.012	0.069	Not Supported
H4d	Calling –> Crafting hindering job demands –> Presenteeism	0.340*0.286 = 0.097**	0.032	3.041	0.045	0.168	Supported

Note: N = 274. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.

Discussion and Theoretical Implications

The fundamental objective of this study is to find out the potential contributors which prompt the act of presenteeism. We contribute theoretically by studying these relationships in the light of SDT and empirically by proposing and testing the direct and indirect relationships among calling, job crafting, and presenteeism.

The findings of this study indicate a significant and positive relationship between calling and presenteeism directly as well as through the mediation of job crafting. H1 proposed a direct relationship between calling and presenteeism, which was confirmed. The research findings also indicate the significant positive association between calling and job crafting as proposed in H2, which reveals the behavioral and individual differences in coping with the situation. The individuals who are living their calling may feel good to work even in bad health. These results are consistent with previous literature.19,74 H3a – H3d proposed the effect of job crafting on presenteeism. Crafting challenging job demands and crafting social job resources had an insignificant relationship with presenteeism. The direct path between calling and presenteeism confirms the calling behavior of employees that they are willing to execute job tasks and try hard to increase productivity even with health issues. The notion of calling became different from other motivation constructs due to its inherent centeracteristics to strive for professional self-recognition.75

The findings against hypothesis H3d regarding the link between decreasing hindering job demands and presenteeism showed a significant positive relationship. The possible justification for decreasing hindering job demands is to build resources for functional presenteeism. Individuals avoid stressful demands and convert tasks into simplified jobs to keep them less emotional and intense. H3c regarding the link between increasing social job resources and presenteeism was not supported. This could be attributed to the minimal support from supervisors and colleagues in the textile sector. As in the textile sector, the traditional management style is prevalent, which is centeracterized by high power distance and strict reporting lines; therefore, coworker support is not readily available because each individual is already occupied with an excessive workload. Socialization is one of the key factors for redesigning tasks. Through interaction with people, “job fit” is achieved which is a historical approach as discussed in the findings of Black and Ashford.76 As employees of the textile sector have no explicit support from their supervisors and co-workers due to high work pressure, so in this case, job crafting through social resources is not supported.

H3b, which proposed the relation between increasing challenging job demands and presenteeism, was also not supported. Challenging job crafting and presenteeism were found to be positively related in physicians’ samples as their profession demands new challenges in the shape of human interactions.9 Employees in hospitals seem to be in a healthy recovery process as human interaction and socialization are believed to be better than absenteeism which leads to high productivity in the shape of good services. In textile sectors, the work is manufacturing-oriented that encompasses a good deal of connection with machinery and calculation of facts and figures that require high mental and physical strength. Therefore, they are not capable of performing challenging tasks and are not willing to take challenges as an opportunity. Challenging job demands require extra resources to take the initiative for new projects or tasks which are not part of one’s job description. To avoid further health impairment, employees possibly evade challenging tasks in order to conserve resources for the execution of the assigned tasks.

The current study is also an attempt to find out a potential mediator for the direct and indirect association of calling with presenteeism. H4a – H4d hypothesized the mediating role of job crafting between calling and presenteeism relationship. Crafting challenging job demands and crafting social job resources had an insignificant mediating impact of calling on presenteeism. Crafting structural job resources and crafting hindering job demands significantly mediated the positive effect of calling on presenteeism. Job crafting as a mediator plays the role of a coping strategy that supports individuals in deciding about organizing the work. The individuals who have a high sense of work calling always use several techniques to start new projects and accept the challenges of work. To make work more meaningful and purposeful, individuals might employ crafting skills to make work easily manageable. This sensemaking approach increases the chances of presenteeism at work which is the ultimate objective of our study. To some extent, presenteeism is the self-affirmation process by fulfilling the psychological needs of employees which is beneficial both for individuals and organizations.77 Affirmation ultimately generates positive emotions to overcome the threats related to presenteeism. Ferreira et al78 show that productivity loss could be mitigated through employee work engagement. In essence, the worst health-related issues and nonproductive outcomes are not driven by immediate presenteeism but arise owing to the mismanagement of workload and absence of adaptability skills.

Managerial Implications

According to the general approach, presenteeism is the flip side of absenteeism, although contemporary studies claim it is not like old wine in a new bottle. Conversely, it is an advanced phenomenon, and its predictors and consequences are different from absenteeism. The central dilemma of presenteeism is to confront expectations linked with work and organization-related task satisfaction even with lousy health.79 Milking more money from the masses is the main agenda of organizations, so employees are not encouraged to stay at home. Resultantly, the literature reports twofold behavior in individuals, either to attend work and be the reason for productivity loss despite being present at work or take it as a challenge and contribute to productivity. The individuals’ calling persuades them to be present at work but their bad health has not allowed them to take task-related responsibilities; in this state dexterity of job crafting elucidated heterogeneity of results. The role of supportive climate and HR practices cannot be neglected which stimulates the individuals to perform in more productive ways by crafting their jobs. The crippling effect of bad health is compensated by giving meaning to work, which puts the employee back on track due to molding of work tasks. The most important implication of this study is the step towards promoting employee commitment and loyalty, which instill positivity in the whole organization. Decade-old perception of productivity loss due to presenteeism is minimized through job crafting. The building mechanism of personal resources provides assistance to handle tricky situations which ultimately increase productivity.

We conclude this study by alluring managers’ devotion to encourage the presenteeism by giving them the empowerment to manage their jobs through best-opted strategies. The managers’ concern about work ethics plays a vital role in functional presenteeism as these employees are more dedicated and loyal to work without noticing long-term impacts on health.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This study has several limitations; one of them is self-reported data which might give rise to single-source bias. Future research might employ multisource responses with longitudinal settings to check the bright side of calling due to presenteeism. As the desired behavior like presenteeism is the outcome of a supportive climate and constructive leadership, future studies might consider suitable moderators to test the boundary conditions of these relationships.

Despite the number of theoretical and practical implications of the current study in organizational settings, still this phenomenon has scarce literature, which is alarming. As in the current study, we have an insignificant association of crafting challenging job demands and crafting social job resources with presenteeism which might arise because of unsupportive culture in the textile sector and high work pressure; this model can be tested with the moderating effect of HR practices and perceived supervisor support extended by the supervisors who might be comfortable with the act of presenteeism. We encourage future researchers to test this model in different organizations like multinational companies and educational institutions. The insignificant relationship also stretches the options to understand the mechanism with other mediators.